Land Plaintiffs’ Bid To Add Title Claims After Trial Began Fails As Madras HC Upholds Refusal To Amend Injunction Suit

The plaintiffs brought O.S. No. 91 of 2021 seeking a permanent injunction.

After pleadings were completed, issues framed and trial commenced, P.W.1’s examination-in-chief was recorded, but he did not appear for cross-examination; his evidence was closed and the case was listed for further plaintiff witnesses.

At that stage, the plaintiffs applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint. The proposed amendments set out an expanded chain of title and possession, challenged instruments and sought declaratory relief concerning specified documents, thereby adding factual and substantive claims.

The trial court dismissed the application, finding that the amendments would introduce new facts, alter the cause of action and change the plaint’s structure.

The plaintiffs challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC governs amendment of pleadings, and its proviso applies once trial has commenced; the court must consider whether the required basis for allowing a post-commencement amendment is established.

The Court treated the proposed amendments’ introduction of new facts, alteration of the cause of action and addition of substantive relief as material considerations in applying that provision.

The revision was brought under Article 227 of the Constitution, but the judgment cites no precedent or separately states a detailed standard for supervisory intervention.

The Court found that the proposed amendments went beyond refining the existing injunction claim: they introduced a new factual case and sought substantive relief, changing the cause of action and the structure of the plaint.

The application had also been made after trial began, bringing the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 into play.

The Court noted that P.W.1 had not submitted to cross-examination and considered that the plaintiffs had realised the suit in its existing form might not be capable of prosecution.

It therefore upheld the trial court’s refusal to allow the amendments.

It observed that the plaintiffs could consider withdrawing the suit and filing a fresh suit for substantive relief, but expressly clarified that this observation did not itself create a cause of action or grant such relief.